Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9
thebruce0

GC280PA - Ironman Cache a day challenge

Recommended Posts

I know of one battle that occurred (well in the past) where someone tried to adopt a cache that was published before Ontario's oldest active cache, and reactivate it for example.

 

The rule makes perfect sense in cases like the one you describe. Cache goes missing (or something else is wrong with it), owner can't be bothered and archives listing. Years later someone wants to revive the cache and adopt the listing. It's reasonable to say that it's a new cache (even if it's the same location) and so it should get a new listing.

 

But in this case? The cache is gonna be the same, the listing is gonna be the same, the requirements are gonna be the same, the location is gonna be the same. Everything is gonna be the same, except for the owner of the listing. And adoption should've happened mere hours after it was archived. For the life of me I can't envision any good reason for not allowing that, and the only (non-)explanation offered so far was "we don't do that".

Share this post


Link to post
If they make the change in policy for this one, how do they tell the next person that they don't qualify for a reviewer exemption? With much more difficulty, that's how.

Nope, because like I said, past examples don't set a precedent. One reviewer can make a decision one day, and decide differently the next without needing to defend the choice. One reviewer can make a decision, and another can decide otherwise, and there's no grounds to have either changed. This is the nature of the review process that's in place. Every decision is independent and unaffected by others in similar circumstances.

As for "pleading for mercy", I can only speak for myself - I have only "plead for mercy" in situations that are 'grey' (ymmv, obviously) when it comes to the guidelines. Common sense denials are, of course, common sense. I'm not going to appeal a cache denied publishing due to being on private property without permission. Would others? Maybe. But all the reviewer needs to say is "Nope", and leave it. It's circumstances like this Ironman cache where the 'grey'ness of the guidelines leaves the situation open to interpretation and common sense, and ultimately the highly subjective, but all-powerful, decision of the reviewer.

 

And there's nothing anyone can do about it. Except going over their heads to appeals. But of course, when dealing with exceptions, there's nothing appeals can do, because the decision is not an 'error' on the part of a reviewer. One can't lobby against a reviewer for an exception. I learned that earlier this year as well. Granting an exception is purely and solely up to the reviewer's will.

 

Just going to re-iterate and echo what dfx just said above, as well as this sentiment from Frank (regardless of reviewer)...

Easy to do, but the drone with the commercial avatar (haha) could easily click one button. Why should he though? Because it would be a kind thing to do???
Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

And there's nothing anyone can do about it. Except going over their heads to appeals. But of course, when dealing with exceptions, there's nothing appeals can do, because the decision is not an 'error' on the part of a reviewer. One can't lobby against a reviewer for an exception. I learned that earlier this year as well. Granting an exception is purely and solely up to the reviewer's will.

 

Don't write off appeals without trying. That's the process.

I have seen even silly things happen. Like an event cache getting published two weeks after it occurred. That was Appeals, not the local reviewers doing that.

 

The reviewer has guidelines that Groundspeak EXPECTs them to follow, not encourages them to follow. They have some latitude yes but if the reviewer doesn't want to, or feel comfortable going against the rules, they can lean on Appeals to take the decision into Groundspeak's hands. Then if there is a mess, it's Groundspeak's problem.

 

Send the email to appeals, and get your answer. If you're not willing to even attempt the process, why is the discussion even happening here? You have your next steps:

 

- Ignore it. Cache goes away

- Appeal it, if you actually want to to take over and adopt the cache

- Geocide but that won't change anything, just punish the local cachers who won't have your caches to visit. (I really hope you don't pick this)

Share this post


Link to post
Don't write off appeals without trying. That's the process.

I have seen even silly things happen.

So have I. Like being told effectively "the reviewer has made their decision, and provided alternate means of (insert supposed goal here), so we recommend you do that. We can do nothing further". It's a safe presumption that that is precisely the stance that they'll take in this situation.

 

If you're not willing to even attempt the process, why is the discussion even happening here?

I already said I wasn't going to commit geocide.

I already said I would encourage someone else to appeal - I won't be adopting it, so it's better the person who is willing to adopt it appeal the decision directly.

 

Discussion happens here because this is a great, and optimal, venue to 1) find out how other people feel, 2) use as a speaker's corner to express concern and critique, 3) have discussion in an open, public environment for the record and for reference, 4) to flesh out solid points in a debate or disagreement, and 5) hopefully come to a consensus, to settle, without having to take it upstairs. Especially on a very, very, simple request.

Share this post


Link to post
Don't write off appeals without trying. That's the process.

I have seen even silly things happen.

So have I. Like being told effectively "the reviewer has made their decision, and provided alternate means of (insert supposed goal here), so we recommend you do that. We can do nothing further". It's a safe presumption that that is precisely the stance that they'll take in this situation.

 

Not even asking guarantees the result.

 

If you're not willing to even attempt the process, why is the discussion even happening here?

I already said I wasn't going to commit geocide.

I already said I would encourage someone else to appeal - I won't be adopting it, so it's better the person who is willing to adopt it appeal the decision directly.

 

Discussion happens here because this is a great, and optimal, venue to 1) find out how other people feel, 2) use as a speaker's corner to express concern and critique, 3) have discussion in an open, public environment for the record and for reference, 4) to flesh out solid points in a debate or disagreement, and 5) hopefully come to a consensus, to settle, without having to take it upstairs. Especially on a very, very, simple request.

 

Sorry but if you are here demanding requesting an action, particularly when the action is the reversal of a decision, it's not exactly a general discussion. More like rounding up a mob and giving everyone a pitchfork.

 

We're in here quibbling about the application of a guideline, which the reviewer already said "take it upstairs".

 

When you go into a store, and the person at the counter says "You'll have to talk to my manager" do you stand up and proudly proclaim that you will do no such thing, that the person at the counter is EXPECTED to make this right without taking it upstairs? Of course not. Even if you've read the Consumer Protection Act front to back you take it to the next step and deal with the person responsible for that decision. Coming back with 100 angry shoppers to heckle the person behind the counter doesn't suddenly raise their responsibility level.

 

You asked, they answered, and you're not happy with the answer. This will remain at a stalemate (or actually remain with advantage reviewer) unless you take it to appeals. Suggesting "someone else" may want to take it to appeals strengthens the reviewer's case that the cache should not be unarchived at this time.

 

If not you, let the champion for this cause step forth and invoke the Appeals Process.

Share this post


Link to post

Hey, you've got to throw a hissy fit express legitimate concerns and criticisms somewhere, right?

 

particularly when the action is the reversal of a decision, it's not exactly a general discussion.

Sorry, we thought perhaps due to the very, very simple nature of the request, having a few more voices express agreement might help change a mind. Seems it got "funny" and sour right quick.

 

More like rounding up a mob and giving everyone a pitchfork.

Hey it's not like we're trying to steal something from the store or anything after having told the clerk what we plan to do, and then piling on the clerk for saying we can't do that. We're legitimately upset because a very, very simple request had been emphatically (and snarkily) denied, for no good reason. You can't blame us for wanting to "rally" for support on the issue, whether or not the goal at that point is to change a mind.

 

As I said before, this is not about The Reviewer. This is about this specific request, and (now, once again, for me at least) the review process that's prompted this sort of "mob mentality", which has occurred more in recent months, and prompted 'geocide' from other long-time geocachers.

 

the reviewer already said "take it upstairs".

...

This will remain at a stalemate (or actually remain with advantage reviewer) unless you take it to appeals. Suggesting "someone else" may want to take it to appeals strengthens the reviewer's case that the cache should not be unarchived at this time.

No one said it wouldn't be taken upstairs. I don't know if it already has. But will it happen by me? In this case no - not as an admission that unarchival is no longer a request, but because it's a challenge cache which I am in the middle of doing, and so to be 'ethically sound', I'm not going to adopt it and own it and then log it found. Thus, I'm not the one to appeal for the exception and adoption. But I can certainly attempt to make a case here as to why it's worthy of an exception, which I believe I have, along with a few others... though I've also probably ruined my case due to my now bitter, sour attitude towards these very, very simple requests, and why I said I give up on this case.

 

And yep, it's a stalemate with advantage reviewer, which is why it's like a bystander opting to give in and settle out of court under the pressure of a corporate law team, rather than pay the cost of going to court. It's a very, very simple request, but at this point it would do more harm to the reviewer to change their mind than to simply take hands-off and pass all further work and effort off to the geocacher.

So, that's point #5 off the table. Obviously no mind is going to be changed. But that still leaves points 1-4 as to why the discussion is still happening.

 

As it stands, I'm only now returning when I think the thread's gone off on a tangent, or a comment is made that I think needs a response. That's it. I'd love an exception to be granted in this case, and I'd be extremely grateful, as would many others.

So once again, I'm out, and back to lurking.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

I do agree that it would be easy to grant the exception. All I would need to do is click one button on the reviewer version of the cache page. In fact I unarchived a cache that was archived about 2 years ago. The unarchive simply isn't the issue.

 

It is our policy, whether that is popular or not, that when a CO decides to "geocide" or other such action like that where they archive their caches that we do not unarchive them. Period. As many of you know, I am pretty rigid about following the instructions that I am given. I do grant exceptions, but do so rarely. That is the case here, there has not been any compelling reason to grant one except some people wish it would happen.

 

People, at least in my experience, prefer the reviewers to make every effort to be consistent. Consistent with the application of the guidelines as well as with how each listing is handled and also with how other reviewers perform their duties. My goal has always been to stick as close to the guidelines as possible, word for word, while being open to making an exception when there is a very compelling reason to do so. That has not happened in this case.

 

:cool: CD

Share this post


Link to post

Just check for bees under the skirt first :lol:

Nah. We usually send our group's Corolla driving photographer to check things out first. :P

Share this post


Link to post

People, at least in my experience, prefer the reviewers to make every effort to be consistent.

I've lost count on how many times I've read and heard people complaining that the reviewers were inconsistent with their interpretation of the guidelines. Now that you're being consistent people are complaining that you shouldn't be. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Now that you're being consistent people are complaining that you shouldn't be. :rolleyes:

Nope. Wrong again. There's nothing here about consistency or lack of it. This is simply a decision against a very, very simple request, that ultimately is being turned down because "I said so." Consistency is good. As is recognizing the ability to grant exceptions to requests that have a solid case. Of course, the final word on exceptions is with the reviewer, so yep, "No" can easily mean "No".

This is not personal. This is not about reviewer consistency. This is simply a non-sensical (ymmv) decision on a simple matter that can't be altered by simple (nor enthusiastic) persuasion.

Share this post


Link to post

Nope. Wrong again. There's nothing here about consistency or lack of it.

Nope. You're wrong again. They don't unarchive caches that were archived on purpose. They're not unarchiving this one as it was archived on purpose. They're being consistent.

 

The archiving of the cache wasn't a mistake. Starting the adoption process too late was the mistake.

Share this post


Link to post

You're missing the point of an "exception". Whether it was a mistake or not, the argument for granting an exception in this specific case is strong. But that clearly holds no weight.

And no, while archival may not have been a mistake, he thought it could still be adopted.

Share this post


Link to post

How has this turned into a discussion about the consistency of the reviewers? Well it started out from what i can tell with the following archival log;

 

I give up on Geocaching.com. I may move this listing to a competitors site. Goodbye. Thanks all for stopping by.

 

I know some of you were looking forward to finding this cache however I will not maintain it. If you wish to hide a similar challenge cache in the area go for it.

 

From that I read that this cacher has given up on geocaching. The owner acknowledges that people are looking forward to finding the cache yet it is archived anyway. This was not an "ooooops" type of archival. Now there is disappointment over it and people are looking for someone to blame. The reviewers have the power to change this yet they have declined. Does this make make the issue at hand the fault of the reviewers? No, the fault lays squarely on the shoulders of the person that archived it in the first place. Is this cache any more important than any other cache? To the people that want it back it looks to be so. But then step back and look at why they want it un-archived. I can understand the disappointment of not being able to find a cache you are looking forward to finding. That's life, suck it up and stop trying to blame others because you can't get what you want. If you don't like that you can't go find a cache, take it up with the person that archived it. If you don't like that a cache you have found that means a lot to you has been archived, take it up with the person that archived it. Commenting about how the reviewers behave because they choose not to reverse what someone else has done is not fair to them. They didn't archive the cache. If people really wanted the find that bad they could have not filled up the cache listing with logs complaining about it forcing it to be locked, visited the cache to sign the log book, and quietly logged they find afterwards when they completed the challenge.

Share this post


Link to post

How has this turned into a discussion about the consistency of the reviewers? Well it started out from what i can tell with the following archival log;

 

I give up on Geocaching.com. I may move this listing to a competitors site. Goodbye. Thanks all for stopping by.

 

I know some of you were looking forward to finding this cache however I will not maintain it. If you wish to hide a similar challenge cache in the area go for it.

 

From that I read that this cacher has given up on geocaching. The owner acknowledges that people are looking forward to finding the cache yet it is archived anyway. This was not an "ooooops" type of archival. Now there is disappointment over it and people are looking for someone to blame. The reviewers have the power to change this yet they have declined. Does this make make the issue at hand the fault of the reviewers? No, the fault lays squarely on the shoulders of the person that archived it in the first place. Is this cache any more important than any other cache? To the people that want it back it looks to be so. But then step back and look at why they want it un-archived. I can understand the disappointment of not being able to find a cache you are looking forward to finding. That's life, suck it up and stop trying to blame others because you can't get what you want. If you don't like that you can't go find a cache, take it up with the person that archived it. If you don't like that a cache you have found that means a lot to you has been archived, take it up with the person that archived it. Commenting about how the reviewers behave because they choose not to reverse what someone else has done is not fair to them. They didn't archive the cache. If people really wanted the find that bad they could have not filled up the cache listing with logs complaining about it forcing it to be locked, visited the cache to sign the log book, and quietly logged they find afterwards when they completed the challenge.

 

+1

 

P.S. Hell just froze over. :)

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
...That's life, suck it up and stop trying to blame others because you can't get what you want...

Thank you for that informative overview, re-iterating the obvious with a touch of condescension.

Speaking for myself, everyone must know by now that my only interest in this feud is personal gratification, and a selfish desire to win and log this cache just because I want to, while simultaneously ruining the reputation of the reviewers by blaming them for everything.

Please.

 

Who cares what the motivation of original owner of the cache was? If he's gone it doesn't matter. "Good riddance", for some it seems. We're not trying to unarchive and save all of his caches. This particular cache was the goal and motivation of a number of cachers who have been working on this challenge (and still are) for up to a year. It's not a quick challenge. It requires time and dedication. Other challenges, regardless of difficulty, can be done very very quick with enough effort. This requires 365 days. People from across the continent have come, and may have been planning to come, to log this 5/5 challenge cache. Read back in the thread for other proposed resolutions and why they may or may not be viable, and why we'd still like this cache adopted.

 

There is ample reason for exception in this case, in my opinion. Nothing's going to change my mind until a rule is written by Groundspeak that archived caches cannot be unarchived for the purpose of adoption. There is no such rule. There are guidelines (read: allowable exceptions on the judgement of reviewers), which can be interpreted to imply that it's frowned upon. Make it a rule. Then I'll drop it. I still see no reason why it's disallowed.

The cache is not illegal, it is not unsafe, it is friendly, it follows all rules and guidelines for placement, it's even physically still there. A strong case has been put forth for its continued existence under the ownership of another cacher, and a volunteer even stepped forth to adopt it.

Why is this still an issue? Because the previous owner had a fit and took his ball to play somewhere else? So, stick it to the rest of the cachers and tell them to blame the original CO?

 

Hell has frozen over?

*PFF* :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

 

Who cares what the motivation of original owner of the cache was? If he's gone it doesn't matter. "Good riddance", for some it seems. We're not trying to unarchive and save all of his caches. This particular cache was the goal and motivation of a number of cachers who have been working on this challenge (and still are) for up to a year. It's not a quick challenge. It requires time and dedication. Other challenges, regardless of difficulty, can be done very very quick with enough effort. This requires 365 days. People from across the continent have come, and may have been planning to come, to log this 5/5 challenge cache. Read back in the thread for other proposed resolutions and why they may or may not be viable, and why we'd still like this cache adopted.

 

 

Anger about the removal of the cache, and it's impact on those trying to complete it should be directed at the CO who archived it. Even worse, the CO has declared the cache is still there, he archived it without removing it. That technically makes it geotrash until someone else re-lists it, if they re-list it.

 

If the CO has gone geocide, then he can't unarchive it as the listing will be active, yet abandoned.

If the CO want's to unarchive it for adoption, and is openly saying that..... well what do you expect. There's no room for wink,wink we'll allow it. It's a crystal clear that the CO only wants to unarchive so he can toss it on someone else's plate.... which brings us full circle.

 

The challenge to find a cache every day for 365 days.... does it REALLY matter what GC Code the cache at the end has.... really? Why is it so bad that the cache gets re-listed. What if 25 people setup 365 day Ironman challenges across the GTA. Does that change the personal challenge for you?

Share this post


Link to post
If the CO has gone geocide, then he can't unarchive it as the listing will be active, yet abandoned.

If the CO want's to unarchive it for adoption, and is openly saying that..... well what do you expect. There's no room for wink,wink we'll allow it. It's a crystal clear that the CO only wants to unarchive so he can toss it on someone else's plate.... which brings us full circle.

What does that matter? I'd think "tossing it on someone else's plate" is a GOOD thing, both for geocachers and geocaching.

"We don't like him any more, so we don't care if if he made a mistake or not, or wants to help other cachers or not"? Who's having the hissy fit again?

 

This is why it's an exception. Obviously you don't unarchive a cache knowing the owner has abandoned it, with no intentions of maintaining it. The exception is based on the spoken word that another person will adopt it, therefore it will not be abandoned. I don't see why saying you'd like to unarchive it so someone else can take it over is a reason in itself to NOT allow it, especially so soon after it was archived (under the impression it could still be adopted!).

Share this post


Link to post
If the CO has gone geocide, then he can't unarchive it as the listing will be active, yet abandoned.

If the CO want's to unarchive it for adoption, and is openly saying that..... well what do you expect. There's no room for wink,wink we'll allow it. It's a crystal clear that the CO only wants to unarchive so he can toss it on someone else's plate.... which brings us full circle.

What does that matter? I'd think "tossing it on someone else's plate" is a GOOD thing, both for geocachers and geocaching.

"We don't like him any more, so we don't care if if he made a mistake or not, or wants to help other cachers or not"? Who's having the hissy fit again?

 

This is why it's an exception. Obviously you don't unarchive a cache knowing the owner has abandoned it, with no intentions of maintaining it. The exception is based on the spoken word that another person will adopt it, therefore it will not be abandoned. I don't see why saying you'd like to unarchive it so someone else can take it over is a reason in itself to NOT allow it, especially so soon after it was archived (under the impression it could still be adopted!).

 

Well, I've already been over my views on this point. The decision at the reviewer level has been made. Appeals is an opportunity to have the decision overturned. Someone has to do that, or nothing will happen.

 

And I agree with Keith's post as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Well, I've already been over my views on this point. The decision at the reviewer level has been made. Appeals is an opportunity to have the decision overturned. Someone has to do that, or nothing will happen.

Yep. That's my frustration with the system, but them's the Facts.

 

And I agree with Keith's post as well.

Not surprised :P

Share this post


Link to post
Those who know me a bit better would be :)

Oh yes. I forgot about that. I have been absent from forum drama for quite some time. But it looks like a number of the big players have come out for this little debacle. Hey, at least I get to be a part of the ruckus that helped bring y'all together in agreement it seems, no? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Those who know me a bit better would be :)

Oh yes. I forgot about that. I have been absent from forum drama for quite some time. But it looks like a number of the big players have come out for this little debacle. Hey, at least I get to be a part of the ruckus that helped bring y'all together in agreement it seems, no? :P

 

... which then brings the "Constructive Results of This Thread" count to... wait for it... one. <_<

 

I'm still wondering if anyone's gonna offer to relist this cache? I admit, it's much more fun to wax sarcastic than to actually move forward, but that just amounts to a bunch of dogs barking in a kennel: It might sound scary, but the dogs are behind an immovable wall and you realize they aren't able to harm you. Besides, the dogs eventually get tired and stop barking which makes the neighbours happy.

 

I'm sorta waiting for someone to just list a cache in that location so that this becomes a non-issue. Perhaps they should call it "He Who Hesitates"...

 

Just create a new listing for this one, and stop this foul smelling entitlement parade.

Share this post


Link to post
Just create a new listing for this one, and stop this foul smelling entitlement parade.

Check earlier in the thread as to why there's ample desire to have this cache re-instated. A new cache is not out of the question, no one said it was. Be by far the favourite resolution (and point of the 'parade') is to have this cache re-instated and adopted.

Share this post


Link to post

You're missing the point of an "exception". Whether it was a mistake or not, the argument for granting an exception in this specific case is strong. But that clearly holds no weight.

And no, while archival may not have been a mistake, he thought it could still be adopted.

 

The case for unarchiving this one is strong, (to tell you the truth IMO there is no excuse for not granting it) this really is none of my business, but for some reason I started reading this thread (thank you Mr.Yuck) and I have to say - this is a unique cache, one that many people have worked a long time towards completing. Yes, make a new one - no problem - but why not just be a good guy and hit that one button and be done with it. Ever heard of mercy? Mercy is giving people what they do not deserve. Goes a long way to making one feel good and making good friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Just create a new listing for this one, and stop this foul smelling entitlement parade.

Check earlier in the thread as to why there's ample desire to have this cache re-instated. A new cache is not out of the question, no one said it was. Be by far the favourite resolution (and point of the 'parade') is to have this cache re-instated and adopted.

 

That's great!

 

Can I ask: Other than the conversation in here, is there some sort of status update that includes the CO actually having sent a request through appeals to have this one re-instated? Has anyone in the "Ample Desire" camp even tried on his behalf? It seems reasonable to me that if there's an exception to every rule (or guideline, in this case) that if enough people actually contacted TPTB about this cache, you might get some response in your favour.

 

Understand, I'm not averse to seeing this one unarchived, I just fail to see why it should be as opposed to creating a brand new listing.

Share this post


Link to post

 

... which then brings the "Constructive Results of This Thread" count to... wait for it... one. <_<

 

 

Actually two.

 

This thread has demonstrated the glaring need for "A Users Guide to Geocide". :)

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Understand, I'm not averse to seeing this one unarchived, I just fail to see why it should be as opposed to creating a brand new listing.

 

There's lots of good reason why it should be, all of which have been presented already. The question is rather why it shouldn't be unarchived. The only reason why it's not being unarchived is because it's their policy. Now I'm all for good policies and sticking to them, but one should rather look at the reasons behind each policy when making a decision.

Share this post


Link to post
There's lots of good reason why it should be, all of which have been presented already. The question is rather why it shouldn't be unarchived. The only reason why it's not being unarchived is because it's their policy. Now I'm all for good policies and sticking to them, but one should rather look at the reasons behind each policy when making a decision.

 

Exactly! Although technically it's not even a policy. It seems to be a generally accepted hidden rule among reviewers.

I linked to the related guidelines that are publicly available which I could find, and none are completely relevant to this specific situation.

1. Archival is permanent, but reviewers may choose to grant an exception for unarchival.

2. Archived caches cannot be adopted

Those are the policies... the requested exception is to guideline #1, so that #2 is no longer an issue. But somewhere the guidelines are being interpreted to mean that "archived caches can't be unarchived for the purposes of adoption". Still haven't seen a rule to that effect (still willing to see it officially). Sure, if one considers the potential for setting precedent then granting this exception could start a painful chain reaction. But we know quite clearly from every level of judgement that precedents aren't set.

And there's definitely no 'playground rules' about not letting the kid who took his ball to another court come back to leave the ball for the others to play with, even though they could just get another ball.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

Another hypothetical conversation:

 

Player : Hello again Reviewer!

Reviewer : Hello again Player!

Player : I'm still hoping that you will unarchive this cache (passes now worn out piece of paper with GC code across table) so that the owner can adopt it to someone!

Reviewer : Huh?

Player : I know you said that caches would not be unarchived for the purposes of adoption -- but I don't *see* that exact line written anywhere in the Listing Guidelines.

Reviewer : <Let's it sink in for a moment><Feelings of deja vu all over again>

 

Reviewer : You've seen in the Listing Guidelines where it says the "Archival is permanent", right?

Player : Yes

Reviewer : And you've seen in the Listing Guidelines where it says that "Archived caches cannot be adopted", right?

Player : Yes

Reviewer : If every Archived cache was Unarchived to allow folks to adopt them... that would kinda make the "Archived caches cannot be adopted" thing kinda redundant, wouldn't it?

Player : I don't like what you are saying. You aren't very flexible.

Reviewer : I've heard that. Recently in fact.

 

Reviewer : OK, let's try a different approach to answering this.

Player : I'm all ears! Anything that gets me what I want!

Reviewer : Are you the cache owner?

Player : No.

Reviewer : Has the cache owner contacted Appeals and asked for their cache to be Unarchived so that it can be adopted?

Player : That's not the point. The point is, you have the ability to unarchive this cache, and you have decided not to.

 

Reviewer : You do realize that Groundspeak Appeals have the authority to override my decisions?

Player : Yes. But I want to know why you interpreted the Listing Guidelines in this way. It doesn't say it cannot be done.

Reviewer : When the Listing Guidelines say "Archived caches cannot be adopted", I interpret THAT guideline as saying it cannot be done.

Player : Until I see it written in plain English that "Archived caches cannot be unarchived for adoption", I won't be happy.

Reviewer : The cache was archived. Archived caches cannot be adopted. Think of a big red stamp going on to the cache that says "THIS CANNOT BE ADOPTED".

Player: Huh?

Reviewer : Yup. Sure, I might be able to Unarchive the cache... but the red inky stamp saying "THIS CANNOT BE ADOPTED" is still there.

Player : I don't agree with that analogy.

Reviewer : .....And only Groundspeak have the ability to circumvent that big inky mark.

 

Player: Why can you not make an exception in this case?

Reviewer: You mean the cache that the CO knowingly Archived? We've covered this haven't we? Is there an echo in here?

Player : I still don't see it written in black and white.

Reviewer : You could also visit Geocaching.com and post feedback to indicate that you think that Listing Guideline needs to be clarified.

Player : Why can you not make an exception in this case?

Reviewer : Why isn't the Cache Owner asking?

Player : Why can you not make an exception in this case?

Reviewer : Has anyone contacted Appeals?

Player : Why can you not mak--- oh, it's a safe presumption that Appeals will not reverse your decision; they'll just agree with you.

Reviewer : I disagree. I've been overruled by Appeals on many occasions!

Player : Well, I don't see it that way.

Reviewer : Ah. So, at the risk of being told definitively "No", you are going to keep asking the person who assertively said "No". Gotcha. OK, so to recap.

 

Cache is archived by CO.

Once it is archived by CO, I imagine a big red rubber stamp on the GC code that says "CANNOT BE ADOPTED".

If the cache is unarchived for whatever reason, that big red "CANNOT BE ADOPTED" stamp remains.

This is where the "Archived caches cannot be adopted" guideline comes into play.

The CO stated clearly they wanted the cache unarchived with the intention that it would be adopted.

As a result, it stands to reason that this nullifies the request to Unarchive the cache for the purposes of adoption, from my perspective.

 

I don't believe there IS an exception to be made; I'd be whacked over the back of the head with a copy of the Listing Guidelines VERY quickly, as I believe that many people interpret this Listing Guideline the way that I do.

 

The CO can contact Appeals to request to have this decision reversed.

Someone who wishes to potentially adopt this cache could also conceivably contact Appeals; it carries less "umph" than the CO, but it's still a possibility.

Appeals are there for a reason.

 

Player : Why can't you make an exception?

Reviewer : I understand where you are coming from. Truly, I do. And I appreciate you taking the time to express your thoughts and feelings on the subject.

Reviewer : A decision was made, based on a Reviewer interpretation of the Listing Guidelines. Reviewers make mistakes. And that is why Appeals exists.

Player : You sound like a broken record.

Reviewer : Your horse was dead. I figured we should stop beating it.

 

Reviewer : Let's concentrate on something else. If you think the Listing Guidelines aren't clear... make the suggestion that they be enhanced.

Player : That doesn't get me what I want, now.

Reviewer : No. And there will always be decisions that a Reviewer makes that won't be accepted by 100% of the people. This is one of those decisions.

Player : I don't like that.

Reviewer : Are we just debating things now for the sake of it.

Player : You're missing my point

Reviewer : <Looking longingly towards a window> Shouldn't we be out there caching?

Share this post


Link to post

Another hypothetical conversation:

 

Player : Hello again Reviewer!

Reviewer : Hello again Player!

Player : I'm still hoping that you will unarchive this cache (passes now worn out piece of paper with GC code across table) so that the owner can adopt it to someone!

Reviewer : Huh?

Player : I know you said that caches would not be unarchived for the purposes of adoption -- but I don't *see* that exact line written anywhere in the Listing Guidelines.

Reviewer : <Let's it sink in for a moment><Feelings of deja vu all over again>

 

Reviewer : You've seen in the Listing Guidelines where it says the "Archival is permanent", right?

Player : Yes

Reviewer : And you've seen in the Listing Guidelines where it says that "Archived caches cannot be adopted", right?

Player : Yes

Reviewer : If every Archived cache was Unarchived to allow folks to adopt them... that would kinda make the "Archived caches cannot be adopted" thing kinda redundant, wouldn't it?

Player : I don't like what you are saying. You aren't very flexible.

Reviewer : I've heard that. Recently in fact.

 

Reviewer : OK, let's try a different approach to answering this.

Player : I'm all ears! Anything that gets me what I want!

Reviewer : Are you the cache owner?

Player : No.

Reviewer : Has the cache owner contacted Appeals and asked for their cache to be Unarchived so that it can be adopted?

Player : That's not the point. The point is, you have the ability to unarchive this cache, and you have decided not to.

 

Reviewer : You do realize that Groundspeak Appeals have the authority to override my decisions?

Player : Yes. But I want to know why you interpreted the Listing Guidelines in this way. It doesn't say it cannot be done.

Reviewer : When the Listing Guidelines say "Archived caches cannot be adopted", I interpret THAT guideline as saying it cannot be done.

Player : Until I see it written in plain English that "Archived caches cannot be unarchived for adoption", I won't be happy.

Reviewer : The cache was archived. Archived caches cannot be adopted. Think of a big red stamp going on to the cache that says "THIS CANNOT BE ADOPTED".

Player: Huh?

Reviewer : Yup. Sure, I might be able to Unarchive the cache... but the red inky stamp saying "THIS CANNOT BE ADOPTED" is still there.

Player : I don't agree with that analogy.

Reviewer : .....And only Groundspeak have the ability to circumvent that big inky mark.

 

Player: Why can you not make an exception in this case?

Reviewer: You mean the cache that the CO knowingly Archived? We've covered this haven't we? Is there an echo in here?

Player : I still don't see it written in black and white.

Reviewer : You could also visit Geocaching.com and post feedback to indicate that you think that Listing Guideline needs to be clarified.

Player : Why can you not make an exception in this case?

Reviewer : Why isn't the Cache Owner asking?

Player : Why can you not make an exception in this case?

Reviewer : Has anyone contacted Appeals?

Player : Why can you not mak--- oh, it's a safe presumption that Appeals will not reverse your decision; they'll just agree with you.

Reviewer : I disagree. I've been overruled by Appeals on many occasions!

Player : Well, I don't see it that way.

Reviewer : Ah. So, at the risk of being told definitively "No", you are going to keep asking the person who assertively said "No". Gotcha. OK, so to recap.

 

Cache is archived by CO.

Once it is archived by CO, I imagine a big red rubber stamp on the GC code that says "CANNOT BE ADOPTED".

If the cache is unarchived for whatever reason, that big red "CANNOT BE ADOPTED" stamp remains.

This is where the "Archived caches cannot be adopted" guideline comes into play.

The CO stated clearly they wanted the cache unarchived with the intention that it would be adopted.

As a result, it stands to reason that this nullifies the request to Unarchive the cache for the purposes of adoption, from my perspective.

 

I don't believe there IS an exception to be made; I'd be whacked over the back of the head with a copy of the Listing Guidelines VERY quickly, as I believe that many people interpret this Listing Guideline the way that I do.

 

The CO can contact Appeals to request to have this decision reversed.

Someone who wishes to potentially adopt this cache could also conceivably contact Appeals; it carries less "umph" than the CO, but it's still a possibility.

Appeals are there for a reason.

 

Player : Why can't you make an exception?

Reviewer : I understand where you are coming from. Truly, I do. And I appreciate you taking the time to express your thoughts and feelings on the subject.

Reviewer : A decision was made, based on a Reviewer interpretation of the Listing Guidelines. Reviewers make mistakes. And that is why Appeals exists.

Player : You sound like a broken record.

Reviewer : Your horse was dead. I figured we should stop beating it.

 

Reviewer : Let's concentrate on something else. If you think the Listing Guidelines aren't clear... make the suggestion that they be enhanced.

Player : That doesn't get me what I want, now.

Reviewer : No. And there will always be decisions that a Reviewer makes that won't be accepted by 100% of the people. This is one of those decisions.

Player : I don't like that.

Reviewer : Are we just debating things now for the sake of it.

Player : You're missing my point

Reviewer : <Looking longingly towards a window> Shouldn't we be out there caching?

 

I don't know you real identity (and I don't want to) but in the words of that great '70s philosopher, David Cassidy, I THINK I LOVE YOU!!!!!!!

 

 

.

Share this post


Link to post

tl;dr.

Ok maybe I did, after responding to the relevant points below...

 

:: Reviewer: We've covered this haven't we? Is there an echo in here?

 

Yes, there does seem to be.

 

:: Reviewer: If every Archived cache was Unarchived to allow folks to adopt them... that would kinda make the "Archived caches cannot be adopted" thing kinda redundant, wouldn't it?

 

We're not asking for every archived cache to be unarchived for adoption. We are only asking for this one, because there is no rule that states it cannot be done or is out of the power of reviewers to do so.

 

:: Player: I'm all ears! Anything that gets me what I want!

 

See previous comments. This is obviously a given. #snark

 

:: Reviewer : Has the cache owner contacted Appeals and asked for their cache to be Unarchived so that it can be adopted?

:: Player : That's not the point. The point is, you have the ability to unarchive this cache, and you have decided not to.

 

Whether the owner has actually written to appeals for the request is being looked into. Regardless, his intention was made known on the cache listing, and blatantly shut down.

 

:: Reviewer: When the Listing Guidelines say "Archived caches cannot be adopted", I interpret THAT guideline as saying it cannot be done.

 

Exactly. Only active caches can be adopted. This one was archived. It's either permanent as described in the guidelines, or it can be undone by a reviewer as described in the guidelines. Oh yes, that latter one is indeed an allowable action, even though an exception.

 

:: Player: Until I see it written in plain English that "Archived caches cannot be unarchived for adoption", I won't be happy.

 

At least you got that player's sentiment accurate.

 

:: Reviewer: The cache was archived. Archived caches cannot be adopted. Think of a big red stamp going on to the cache that says "THIS CANNOT BE ADOPTED".

 

I don't see a big red stamp on the cache that says that. Are you seeing something we are not seeing?

 

:: Reviewer: Yup. Sure, I might be able to Unarchive the cache... but the red inky stamp saying "THIS CANNOT BE ADOPTED" is still there.

 

Where?

 

:: Reviewer: I imagine a big red rubber stamp on the GC code that says "CANNOT BE ADOPTED".

 

Ah I guess you do see something we do not see.

 

:: Reviewer: You could also visit Geocaching.com and post feedback to indicate that you think that Listing Guideline needs to be clarified.

 

Good idea. Hey I guess that's another constructive outcome to this thread! yay! :omnomnom: Maybe I'll do that after we hear back from appeals.

 

:: Reviewer: I disagree. I've been overruled by Appeals on many occasions!

:: Player : Well, I don't see it that way.

 

Irrelevant here. Also, have you been reading things we haven't seen here as well?

 

:: Reviewer: So, at the risk of being told definitively "No", you are going to keep asking the person who assertively said "No". Gotcha.

 

Nope. I have myself admitted to the fact that it is essentially a futile battle at this point to change any reviewer mind on the matter (though it would be a pleasant surprise!). That was one of the 5 reasons I posted earlier about ranting discussing here knocked off the list.

 

Now, ignoring what you "imagine seeing"...

If the cache is unarchived for whatever reason, that big red "CANNOT BE ADOPTED" stamp remains.

Eh? Where is that a rule, or even a guideline?

 

As a result, it stands to reason that this nullifies the request to Unarchive the cache for the purposes of adoption, from my perspective.

Precisely why I've said it's a matter of subjective interpretation, it's not clear, it's a cause for confusion and frustration, and why I'd prefer to see either an exception granted (by whoever) given the strong argument for one here, or clarity on the matter as a rule from TPTB.

 

I'd be whacked over the back of the head with a copy of the Listing Guidelines VERY quickly, as I believe that many people interpret this Listing Guideline the way that I do

Argument ad populum? You shouldn't be making a decision based on how many people agree with you, not that you are of course, because reviewers shouldn't be swayed by popular opinion.

Nonetheless, once again it's a matter of interpretation (quite unlike, eg, "caches cannot be placed on private property without permission").

 

The CO can contact Appeals to request to have this decision reversed.

Someone who wishes to potentially adopt this cache could also conceivably contact Appeals; it carries less "umph" than the CO, but it's still a possibility.

Appeals are there for a reason.

Most indeed.

 

I understand where you are coming from. Truly, I do. And I appreciate you taking the time to express your thoughts and feelings on the subject.

Where's that "funny" animated gif again...?

No really, thank you for your concern and understanding, it's very much appreciated.

 

:: Reviewer: A decision was made, based on a Reviewer interpretation of the Listing Guidelines. Reviewers make mistakes. And that is why Appeals exists.

:: Player : You sound like a broken record.

:: Reviewer: Your horse was dead. I figured we should stop beating it.

 

That's good, the neighbours were complaining about the repetitive thudding.

 

:: Player: That doesn't get me what I want, now.

 

Who is this "Player" you're talking to anyway?

 

:: Reviewer: No. And there will always be decisions that a Reviewer makes that won't be accepted by 100% of the people. This is one of those decisions.

 

Indeed. Maybe we should discuss it. I hear there's a forum thread for that.

 

:: Reviewer: Are we just debating things now for the sake of it.

 

Easily rectified by a click of a button.

 

:: Reviewer : <Looking longingly towards a window> Shouldn't we be out there caching?

 

...or working. I really should be working. But man, isn't this thread just so exciting?

 

Ok, I'm all sarcasticked out.

I need to relax. Hey CacheShadow, want to go caching? For all I know you're in the next building over. :P

Share this post


Link to post

Seriously... there's a heck of a lot of intellectual capability in this forum thread.

 

I appreciate everyone's opinion, everyone's approach and everyone's perspective. (Remember that when I'm *REALLY* wrong and someone calls me on it).

Even though there might be some rib-poking, jostling and chortling in some forum threads - I wanted to say I do appreciate that folks take the time to post, ponder, discuss and debate this stuff.

I chuckled greatly at thebruce0's reply/response; and the last few lines made my day. Thanks for that thebruce0; and thanks for taking my post in the spirit in which it was intended. Poor horsie.

This has been a good thread; no-one has really taken themselves too seriously; heck, I've even heard rumours that Satan skated to work today. **

 

CacheShadow

 

Edit : ** Confirmed. I just checked.

Edited by CacheShadow

Share this post


Link to post

My 2 cents (what it's worth) is that the saddest part of this is whole thing that the reason the CO was archiving the cache was because he was driven away from geocaching.com. And fiascoes such as this only drive more people away.

 

I havent read all the above and since it regurgitates the same thing over and over I will give my insight.

 

I didn't know archived caches could not be unarchived for the purpose of adopted.

See my Bookmark list for other (older) 365 challenges. There may be more but Ironman is not original albeit it's likely the first in Ontario.

See this cache as to a reason why I "Geocided" all my caches. http://coord.info/GC22YPB it came in and out of archival without much trouble.

I am still an active geocache finder. I just give up on the hiding drama.

It was a rash choice to archive Ironman before adoption was an option. As it turns out I was unaware of this "alleged" rule. I still think the unarchive for adoption purpose is a loose reading of the rule. That and the fact that the request was made within 48 hours of my archival.

 

I will appeal.

Share this post


Link to post

See this cache as to a reason why I "Geocided" all my caches. http://coord.info/GC22YPB it came in and out of archival without much trouble.

 

I'm a little confused; you geocided because I unarchived your cache and the Reviewer Note said I would check back in 30 days?

 

Wow.

Share this post


Link to post

I pasted a Reviewer Note on that cache this morning; I didn't realize it was the same CO as the cache that this cache related to.

Edited by CacheShadow

Share this post


Link to post

I pasted a Reviewer Note on that cache this morning; I didn't realize it was the same CO as the cache that this cache related to.

 

To clarify.

 

It was not solely because of that cache. Two things happened. I gave up arguing, and maintenance wthin 30 days was not possible. The draconian rules with this cache and other caches were straws on the camels back. Not just GC straws but combined, it is too much to deal with. Personal life events are taking priority.

 

I saw this cache came in and out of archival fairly easily so I thought it would not be such a big deal. Adoption was not initially considered till someone brought up the prospect of adopting. Hope that clears it up. I think other cachers would maintain the Ironman, even if it was still my listing.

Share this post


Link to post
Unarchiving the cache for adoption would set a precedent that would most likely turn nasty on the Ontario Reviewers pretty quick

 

Nope! Precedents are not set by reviewer decision. That is a Fact that has been pointed out clearly and repeatedly. You can't have it both ways. If past actions don't set a precedent for future cases, then you can't use concern for future cases as an excuse/reason for your immediate decision.

 

Tell that to the hoards who will use it as an excuse to start that fight. I'm not in the know, but I know if I was a reviewer I'd be very, very careful before saying "oh hell it's just one, here you go". I know of one battle that occurred (well in the past) where someone tried to adopt a cache that was published before Ontario's oldest active cache, and reactivate it for example.

 

Shhhhhh! We can't have people knowing that Ontario's first cache was actually a film canister at the base of a Park sign in Bolton, and not Deer Bait, which everyone seems to think it is. :D

Share this post


Link to post

Me again. I guess I should comment on topic. Although I have seen a handful of real oldies (like 2001 or 2002 placements) unarchived for the purposes of adoption, "they" just don't do that anymore. Someone could easily just make a new challenge cache. Are there other 365 day ironman challenges in Canada? How many?

Share this post


Link to post

Mr. Yuck, we've already discussed that option earlier in the thread. We'd just be going in circles were we to do it again. Thanks for the input.

Share this post


Link to post

Mr. Yuck, we've already discussed that option earlier in the thread. We'd just be going in circles were we to do it again. Thanks for the input.

 

Sorry! I just felt compelled to post on topic, after I commented somewhat off topic on the obscure quote from NP about Ontario's first cache, which is NOT Deer Bait, despite about 10 bookmark lists which say it is. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

I have read through the thread and I still don't see why this can't be resolved with a simple redux. This isn't an old cache. This isn't the first of its kind. Many have risen to the challenge and as such qualify to create their own version of it. I think if you want to put a feather in your cap, feel free, it is an awesome challenge. Why does it have to be a certain GC code? I am having trouble with the idea that it MUST be this cache and not another similar listing in the same region.

Share this post


Link to post

I have read through the thread and I still don't see why this can't be resolved with a simple redux. This isn't an old cache. This isn't the first of its kind. Many have risen to the challenge and as such qualify to create their own version of it. I think if you want to put a feather in your cap, feel free, it is an awesome challenge. Why does it have to be a certain GC code? I am having trouble with the idea that it MUST be this cache and not another similar listing in the same region.

 

That's my mindset as well. If the concern is a date restriction (aka the oh gawd I have to start my 365 days all over again clause) the solution is to match the date to the original Ironman challenge .... or publish an Ironman 365 challenge with no date restriction on when to start. But when I look at the listing there is no date restriction which again means the only real difference between a new identical listing and the archived one is the GC code, the Cache Owner and a few log entries.

Share this post


Link to post
But when I look at the listing there is no date restriction which again means the only real difference between a new identical listing and the archived one is the GC code, the Cache Owner and a few log entries.

Which is the same as our argument - if it's 'so simple' to just create a new listing, it's 'even more simple' to just unarchive the existing for adoption. Every solution is 'simple', which is why this debate is so frustrating, and no one is budging.

Share this post


Link to post
But when I look at the listing there is no date restriction which again means the only real difference between a new identical listing and the archived one is the GC code, the Cache Owner and a few log entries.

Which is the same as our argument - if it's 'so simple' to just create a new listing, it's 'even more simple' to just unarchive the existing for adoption. Every solution is 'simple', which is why this debate is so frustrating, and no one is budging.

 

But, as a player, creating a new listing is the path of least resistance. It does not require you to move a reviewer to change their decisions.

 

If you /must/ have the original listing, a path has been provided but it is rocky and not marked well ... But it exists ...

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9

×
×
  • Create New...